Freezing injunctions—real risk of dissipation of assets
Freezing injunctions—real risk of dissipation of assets

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Freezing injunctions—real risk of dissipation of assets
  • The requirement of real risk
  • Real risk—meaning and scope
  • Real risk—what will the courts consider?
  • Options if a 'real risk' cannot be shown
  • Admission of further evidence in relation to a real risk of dissipation
  • Real risk of dissipation—post-judgment freezing injunctions

The requirement of real risk

When considering whether to grant a freezing injunction, the courts will need to ensure that certain requirements have been met. One of these is that there is a 'real risk' that a judgment obtained by the claimant will not be satisfied usually due to dissipation by the defendant of its assets or unjustified dealing with the defendant’s assets. This requirement is considered in this Practice Note.

For information on the other requirements, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—requirements.

Real risk—meaning and scope

If the court has found that there is a good and arguable case against the defendant, it will go on to consider whether there is a 'real risk' that a judgment obtained by the claimant will not be satisfied.

Generally, this risk will occur as a consequence of the defendant dissipating their assets (The Niedersachsen). However, it also covers other actions of the defendant which would raise the 'real risk' that any judgment will be rendered nugatory (Cherney v Neuman). In National Bank Trust v Yurov, the court used the language of a real risk of ‘unjustified dealing’ with the defendant’s assets, which encompasses not only dissipation but other ways in which assets may be put of reach of enforcement by a defendant’s actions (see, also, Fundo Soberano De Angola v Santos). For example,